KUMARI SUNITI Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the result of the petitioner of B.A. (I) examination held in April 1998 be declared and the examination of Uttar Madhyama which she had qualified from Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, be treated equivalent to Intermediate i.e. 10+2 system of examination and directions be issued to the University to hold the meeting of the Equivalence Committee for this purpose.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that petitioner is a resident of Village Babkarpur, P.O. Kant, District Shajhanpur, Uttar Pradesh and passed the Uttar Madhyama Examination from Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, (Uttar Pradesh) (which was earlier known as Varanasi Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya), in the year 1997. Petitioner submits that after qualifying this examination, she sought admission in B.A.(I) in Rajkiya Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Shimla in August, 1998. She was admitted to the B.A.(I) Course and appeared in the examination held in the month of April, 1999. The case of the petitioner is that the Principal of the college where she was studying issued a letter to her (Annexure P-1) issued on the basis of a communication received from the Controller of Examinations, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, stating that she was ineligible to appear in B.A.(I) examination, as her 10+2 equivalence certificate had not been attached with the examination form. The petitioner alleges that thereafter she personally met the Controller of Examination of respondent No. 1 and submitted Office Memorandum (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension (Department of Personnel & Training). This Memorandum was dealing with the Recognition of Examinations conducted by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. The Memorandum states:

(3.) THE Himachal Pradesh University resisted the petition on a number of grounds. The basic defence taken by the respondents is that despite communications having been addressed to the University from where the petitioner had passed Uttar Madhyama, no response was received. It is also the case of the respondents that equivalence cannot be granted in the absence of any response unless the queries and material asked for is provided by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya t the respondents.